Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. As regards subsistence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties, the petitioner has stated that it is the father of the respondents who was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises by his father, and a rent note dated 09.01.1979 was executed between the parties. The said rent agreement in original was produced by the petitioner on record being Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR). In their pleadings, the respondents have controverted this rent note and have stated that the same is forged and fabricated. Similarly, they have also stated that the rent receipt Ex. PW-1/2 (OS&R), which as per which the petitioner, also bears the signatures of the father of the respondents, is also forged and fabricated. Not only have the respondents controverted the veracity of the lease deed RC ARC/72/21 Kamal Kishore Vs. Pramod Kumar & Anr. 14/26 and the rent note as above, but they have set up a contrary version to say that they are actually the tenants of one Shamim Ahmed S/o. Mohd. Ahmed. However, when the evidence led on record is appreciated, it is seen that the version of the respondents has been left open ended by them, and the gaping gaps in their testimony enure to the benefit of petitioner. Respondents have stated that they used to pay rent to one Shamim Ahmed S/o. late Mohd. Ahmed, but could not produce any rent receipt to substantiate their version. Further, they failed to give any particulars regarding their tenancy to support their version. That is to say, they did not say as to what was the commencing point of the tenancy, whether they were inducted as tenants in the demised premises themselves, or whether their father was let in the demised premises when the tenancy was initiated, what was the initial rate of rent, and what were the other terms and conditions of such tenancy under which they were inducted as tenants in the premises. Absence of these details makes their version suspect. The alleged landlord Shri Shamim Ahmed S/o Late Mohd. Ahmed could have been summoned as a witness by the respondents to prove their version, but not to be. It has also not been shown by them on record that some dispute regarding ownership over demised premises is pending between the petitioner and Sh. Shamim Ahmed. In absence of any oral or documentary evidence to support this version, vague testimony of respondent No. 2 as contained in the evidence affidavit Ex. RW-1/A, that they have been paying rent to Shri Shamim Ahmed S/o. Late Shri Mohd. Ahmed, is not sufficient to establish, even on a scale of preponderance of probabilities, that respondents are tenants under the said Shamim Ahmad. When the testimony of the respondents is juxtaposed with RC ARC/72/21 Kamal Kishore Vs. Pramod Kumar & Anr. 15/26 the testimony of the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner has been able to prove on record a well rounded-up version. He has explained as to how the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent was inducted in the premises, how the tenancy devolved upon the respondents, and has also explained as to how he acquired title to the demised premises. The version of the petitioner seems to inspire confidence.